New To Mac-Forums?

Welcome to our community! Join the discussion today by registering your FREE account. If you have any problems with the registration process, please contact us!

Get your questions answered by community gurus Advice and insight from world-class Apple enthusiasts Exclusive access to members-only contests, giveaways and deals

Join today!

 
Start a Discussion
 

Mac-Forums Brief

Subscribe to Mac-Forums Brief to receive special offers from Mac-Forums partners and sponsors

Join the conversation RSS
Apple Rumors and Reports Discuss what's going on with Apple in this forum

What does and doesn't actually speed up your Mac


Post Reply New Thread Subscribe

 
Thread Tools
chscag

 
chscag's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 23, 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 41,425
chscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 27" iMac i5, 3.2 GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 5c, 3 iPods, Yosemite

chscag is offline
Interesting article from MacWorld Magazine about what does and what does not speed up your Mac. Pay special attention to part 3 about SSD size and what that has to do with speed.

Fact or fiction: What does (and doesn't) actually speed up your Mac | Macworld
QUOTE Thanks
vansmith

 
vansmith's Avatar
 
Member Since: Oct 19, 2008
Location: Toronto
Posts: 18,352
vansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond reputevansmith has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 2012 13" MBP (2.5 i5, 8GB)

vansmith is offline
One important piece missing from that list: repairing permissions is the not end-all, cure-all, fix-all that is sometimes appear. If your machine is running slow, repairing permissions isn't going to help.

Important Links: Community Guidelines : Use the reputation system if you've been helped.
M-F Blog :: Write for the blog
Writing a Quality Post
QUOTE Thanks
pigoo3

 
pigoo3's Avatar
 
Member Since: May 20, 2008
Location: U.S.
Posts: 28,193
pigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond reputepigoo3 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 13" MB 2.4ghz, 2gig ram, OS 10.7.5

pigoo3 is offline
Nice little article there Charlie. I'm glad to see a good amount of what was mentioned we already "preach" here on Mac-Forums. Of course the SSD info does take some "real" laboratory testing.

Thanks for posting a link to it!

- Nick

- Too many "beachballs", read this: Beachballs
- Computer seems slower than it used to? Read this for some slow computer tips: Speedup
- Almost full hard drive? Some solutions. Out of Space
- Apple Battery Info. Battery
QUOTE Thanks
Exodist

 
Exodist's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 26, 2012
Location: Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Posts: 887
Exodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really nice
Mac Specs: L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), dual 23" Samsung LED Displays

Exodist is offline
Pretty much everything they posted is what we keep telling everyone.
The additional monitor is a little yes and no. They claimed there was no performance hit. But the way they tested it, does not show real results. I will explain. While plugging up extra monitors in most cases does not slow down the computer as a whole. It will effect GPU performance because the RAMDAC must now digital to analog signals for multiple displays, or as the RAMDAC sees it, just twice as many pixels now. Also if you are running a GPU intensive program on monitor A and something else or even just the desktop on monitor B. There will be a performance hit to Monitor A and some to B as well. Now this is a very minor hit to almost not noticeable for normal desktop usage. It inherently will always be.



This is what came to mind when I first read the thread title.. hehe



NOS Stickers! They want speed up your computer, but will make you look like a real gear head!


Exodist Photography on Youtube
Lightroom, Photoshop video tutorials and more...
***If someone helps you, please don't forget to use the reputation system.***
QUOTE Thanks
chas_m

 
chas_m's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 22, 2010
Location: Victoria, BC
Posts: 17,528
chas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond reputechas_m has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: Mid-2012 MBP (16GB, 1TB HD), BenQ second monitor, iPhone 5s 32GB, iPad Air 2 64GB

chas_m is offline
What "speeds up" your Mac: replacing the HD with an SSD.
What keeps your Mac running well: all the things mentioned in the article
What doesn't speed up your Mac: any software program that claims it will speed up your Mac.
QUOTE Thanks
mesut

 
Member Since: Sep 09, 2013
Location: Turkey
Posts: 108
mesut will become famous soon enough
Mac Specs: MBA mid-2013

mesut is offline
Seeing that the fill rate of the SSD not affecting the performance until it is 97% filled filled me with joy. I became a useless files detector and eraser after I moved from my desktop which had 2 TB space to a Mac with 128 GB SSD.

But I'm not sure if that is really true.
QUOTE Thanks
RavingMac

 
RavingMac's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 07, 2008
Location: In Denial
Posts: 7,664
RavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 4GB Mac Mini 2012, 13" MBA, 15" MacBook Pro OSX 10.7, 32 GB iPhone 3GS, iPad2 64gb 3G

RavingMac is offline
Thanks for sharing. Makes me glad I opted for the 480 GB SSD, rather than trying to squeeze into the 240.

I've always wanted to be smart, handsome and modest. But, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with two out of three . . .
QUOTE Thanks
Exodist

 
Exodist's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 26, 2012
Location: Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Posts: 887
Exodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really nice
Mac Specs: L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), dual 23" Samsung LED Displays

Exodist is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by mesut View Post
Seeing that the fill rate of the SSD not affecting the performance until it is 97% filled filled me with joy. I became a useless files detector and eraser after I moved from my desktop which had 2 TB space to a Mac with 128 GB SSD.

But I'm not sure if that is really true.
The reason a HDD slows down is due to the placement of the data on the platers of the HDD. When data first gets placed on the drive, it is placed to the center of the drive. Thus when the arm that holds the read/write heads moves, it has a shorter distance to move to gather the data. When it has to move to the outside of the platters the segments are generally spaced further apart due to rotation speed and it takes the drive longer to find and move the data.

A SSD on the other hand, it just RAM chips and no mechanical slow downs are present..


Hope this explains..


Exodist Photography on Youtube
Lightroom, Photoshop video tutorials and more...
***If someone helps you, please don't forget to use the reputation system.***
QUOTE Thanks
chscag

 
chscag's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 23, 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 41,425
chscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 27" iMac i5, 3.2 GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 5c, 3 iPods, Yosemite

chscag is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavingMac View Post
Thanks for sharing. Makes me glad I opted for the 480 GB SSD, rather than trying to squeeze into the 240.
Yeah Mike, that part of the article surprised me when I read it. That's a good reason for avoiding the small cheap SSDs we often see advertised. It does make me wonder how effective the fusion drives that Apple offers are? It seems to me unless you opt for a large fusion drive, you may be better off spending money on the same machine with better standard specs.
QUOTE Thanks
Exodist

 
Exodist's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 26, 2012
Location: Agusan del Norte, Philippines
Posts: 887
Exodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really niceExodist is just really nice
Mac Specs: L2012 Mini, i7 2.6Ghz, 8GB RAM, 256GB SSD + 1TB HDD(fusion), dual 23" Samsung LED Displays

Exodist is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by chscag View Post
Yeah Mike, that part of the article surprised me when I read it. That's a good reason for avoiding the small cheap SSDs we often see advertised. It does make me wonder how effective the fusion drives that Apple offers are? It seems to me unless you opt for a large fusion drive, you may be better off spending money on the same machine with better standard specs.
Fusion drive has its pros and cons. But here is the short and simple version. The fusion drive what I can tell works as a JBOD array with one exception. The Flash storage side of the fusion drive works as disk cache. So when files are moved onto the fusion drive they are moved first to the flash storage, then later the data is then moved to permanent storage on the regular HDD part of the array. As far as the OS is located. Don't shoot me if I am wrong, but I don't think all of the OS is on the flash storage side, I know the kernel and pretty much all the kernel modules must be on the flash storage to start the JBOD up. But I believe the rest of the OS like the built in applications are actually located on the HDD side of the house. Which corresponds with many claiming its fast, but not as fast as a pure SSD.

So the pros are that data is fast getting written (at least until the buffer is full). Faster then normal startup. Much larger storage without multiple drive locations.

The cons, slow read speeds common to HDDs. MTBF is double due to two disk in the JBOD array.


--------------


Now in regards to why SSDs are faster the larger they are. I think this has to do with independent memory banks working in parallel with each other. Thus creating more memory bandwidth and thus faster transfer speeds. If I am explaining this correctly..

I knew this when I got my Samsung 256GB 830 series, but 512 was the largest then and way to over priced. Plus I think at the time the 512 was only about 50 to 100MB/s faster. Perhaps due to other reasons, so I am not certain. But the 256 was the best price/performance/capacity at the time.


Exodist Photography on Youtube
Lightroom, Photoshop video tutorials and more...
***If someone helps you, please don't forget to use the reputation system.***
QUOTE Thanks
Slydude

 
Slydude's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 16, 2009
Location: North Louisiana, USA
Posts: 6,870
Slydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: 2.8 GHz MacBook Pro 10.8,3 8 GB mem, 2.66 GHz Mac Pro - Dead, iPhone 4

Slydude is offline
Quote:
Originally Posted by RavingMac View Post
Thanks for sharing. Makes me glad I opted for the 480 GB SSD, rather than trying to squeeze into the 240.
I thought the same thing when I skimmed that article last night, I just ordered an SSD yesterday. I stretched the budget a bit and went for a 480 GB as well. Kinda glad I did.

Sylvester Roque Former Contributing Editor About This Particular Macintosh

"Got Time to breathe. You got time for music." Denver Pyle as Briscoe Darling
QUOTE Thanks
chscag

 
chscag's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 23, 2008
Location: Fort Worth, Texas
Posts: 41,425
chscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond reputechscag has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 27" iMac i5, 3.2 GHz, iPad 3, iPhone 5c, 3 iPods, Yosemite

chscag is offline
Quote:
I stretched the budget a bit and went for a 480 GB as well. Kinda glad I did.
I'll be glad to see prices start coming down - which we should see this year as more and more of the NAND modules are being produced. I didn't order a SSD when I bought my 2013 iMac last year. Just couldn't really afford to lay out another $500 for a large SSD to replace the 1 TB 7200 RPM 3.5" drive that came standard. And I didn't have any faith in ordering a Fusion drive - actually, I still don't have much faith in them.
QUOTE Thanks
Slydude

 
Slydude's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 16, 2009
Location: North Louisiana, USA
Posts: 6,870
Slydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant futureSlydude has a brilliant future
Mac Specs: 2.8 GHz MacBook Pro 10.8,3 8 GB mem, 2.66 GHz Mac Pro - Dead, iPhone 4

Slydude is offline
Disk Utility says my main internal drive is fine Tech Tool Pro reports some bad blocks but suggests S.M.A.R.T. status is fine. A utility that Randy mentioned in another thread reports S.M.A.R.T status as failing and also reports the bad blocks. I decided to replace the drive rather than push my luck.

I had been putting off getting an SSD due to cost. This is a 2008 machine after all and it has been run hard almost every day. I finally chose the SSD because I can use the speed boost. If the machine fails in the near future I'll pull the SSD and use it elsewhere.

Sylvester Roque Former Contributing Editor About This Particular Macintosh

"Got Time to breathe. You got time for music." Denver Pyle as Briscoe Darling
QUOTE Thanks
RavingMac

 
RavingMac's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jan 07, 2008
Location: In Denial
Posts: 7,664
RavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond reputeRavingMac has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: 4GB Mac Mini 2012, 13" MBA, 15" MacBook Pro OSX 10.7, 32 GB iPhone 3GS, iPad2 64gb 3G

RavingMac is offline
I have been very pleased so far with the upgrade, though after reading the article I wish now I had gone with 8 rather than 16GB RAM.

I've always wanted to be smart, handsome and modest. But, I guess I'll have to be satisfied with two out of three . . .
QUOTE Thanks
harryb2448

 
harryb2448's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 28, 2007
Location: Nambucca Heads Australia
Posts: 18,326
harryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond reputeharryb2448 has a reputation beyond repute
Mac Specs: iMac i5 2.7GHz, 16GB memory, OS 10.10.1

harryb2448 is online now
Sly if SMARTReporter is indicating a failing drive, simply don't trust the drive.

Hang on to those original install discs like grim death! Using OS X.7 or later make a bootable USB thumb drive before running Installer!
QUOTE Thanks

Post Reply New Thread Subscribe


« New Blog: Learning the Command Line ? Shell Scripts | Snow Leopard updates »
Thread Tools

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off
Forum Jump

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 05:09 PM.

Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
X

Welcome to Mac-Forums.com

Create your username to jump into the discussion!

New members like you have made this community the ultimate source for your Mac since 2003!


(4 digit year)

Already a member?